spec decision

CSL Development
1

So I’ve decided to go with the approach represented here:

http://www.users.muohio.edu/darcusb/citations/csl/spec1.html

I’ve added changes to the file to the repo. Currently, I have this
structure, but will aim to simplify it more:

* Style Structure
* Independent and Dependent Styles
* Preamble
* Metadata
* Text
      o Formatting Attributes
* Macros
* Contexts
      o Citation
      o Bibliography
* Terms
* Citation-Bibliography-Macro Syntax
* Options
      o Common options
      o Citation only options
      o Bibliography only options
* Sorting
* Variables
      o Source Variables
      o Citation Variables
* Contributors
* Dates
* Labels
* Groups
* Conditionals

In terms of the language of the document, we’ll need to tighten it up
to be more formally technical, and to expand it to include details
that are currently uindocumented.

My suggestion is we probably leave deployment issues to a separate spec.

Bruce

2

How about something like:

CSL Format Spec

  • Introduction (what is CSL, what is its purpose)
  • Style Structure (discuss distinction independent and dependent styles)
    o Preamble (start with required style structure elements)
    o Info
    o Citation
    o Bibliography
    o Macros
    o Terms
  • Information types (for lack of a better name)
    o Text (discuss formatting attributes)
    o Dates
    o Contributors
    o Labels
  • Behavior
    o Options
    - Common options
    - Citation only options
    - Bibliography only options
    o Sorting
    o Conditionals
    o Groups
  • Variables (?? What are source and citation variables ??)
    o Source Variables
    o Citation Variables

Rintze

3

I don’t have a strong opinion, but would lik to nail down this structure soon.

Does this look good to everyone? Any other suggestions?

4

With regard to the last entry (variables), I didn’t really know where to put
it. Maybe they could be included in an appendix (with item types being
listed in another)? But what is the distinction between source and citation
variables?

Rintze

5

I don’t have a strong opinion, but would lik to nail down this structure soon.

Does this look good to everyone? Any other suggestions?

Here are a few thoughts, see what you think, feel free to take or leave:

  • Change “Information types” heading to “Rendering elements”
  • Move “Groups” subheading into “Rendering elements” section.
  • Change Contributors subheading to Names?
  • Add Number heading in “Rendering elements” section.
  • Split discussion of formatting attributes from Text element, and
    move to its own heading in Behavior section
6

I think they’re all good points. So (together with some of my own musings)
that would make:

Citation Style Language Specification

  • Introduction (what is CSL, what is its purpose)
  • Style Layout (discuss distinction independent and dependent styles)
    o Preamble (start with required style structure elements, discuss
    namespaces)
    o Info
    o Citation
    o Bibliography
    o Macros
    o Locale (used to be Terms)
  • Rendering Elements
    o Text
    o Date
    o Number
    o Names
    o Label
    o Groups
  • Style Behavior
    o Options
    - Common options
    - Citation only options
    - Bibliography only options
    o Sorting
    o Conditionals
    o Formatting Attributes
    Appendix I - Variables (csl-variables.rnc)
    Appendix II - Item types (csl-types.rnc)
    Appendix III - Terms (csl-terms.rnc)
    Appendix IV - CSL Schema (It might be a good thing to branch off the spec
    for each release of the CSL schema)
    Appendix V - Changelog of the schema (starting with 0.8)
    Appendix VI - Implementing CSL/Deploying existing CSL engines

RintzeOn Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Frank Bennett <@Frank_Bennett>wrote: